---

Education and Inspections Bill

My Lords, Amendments Nos. 93 and 94 carry on our crusade for the reintroduction of modern foreign languages as compulsory subjects up to the age of 16. That compulsion was the case until 2003, when modern foreign languages were demoted from foundation subject status to entitlement subjects. The amendments would allow those children for whom English is a second language to spend time studying English that they would otherwise spend on another modern foreign language. We believe that will complement the fantastic efforts of schools that teach a large proportion of children for whom English is not their first language. Since the demotion of modern foreign languages in the curriculum, there has been a dramatic drop in the number of people studying a modern foreign language at GCSE. Indeed, by November 2005, 64 per cent of maintained schools had experienced a fall in the numbers studying modern foreign languages for key stage 4, compared with figures for the previous three years. John Dunford, general secretary of the Association of School and College Leaders, stated in the Times on 25 August this year that the entries for foreign languages are in ““free fall””. I have highlighted this situation before. I remind your Lordships’ House that a survey last February by the European Commission found that two in three adults in Britain could not speak a language other than English. That has severe ramifications for our place in a competitive global market. It is not just a matter of trade-offs, as the Minister described in his response in Committee; rather, this is a serious component of the future of our successful competitiveness in a global economy. There is a serious failing in the way in which policy on the curriculum has been managed under this Government. The Government’s policy has been described by the general secretary of the National Union of Teachers, Steve Sinnott, as a ““complete disaster””. I hasten to add that I do not believe that that is the fault of the Minister, or necessarily the way in which this present department has dealt with the issue. In fact, I sincerely believe that, were it convenient to undo the policy decision from 2003, he would do so. That would be welcomed by the professional and teaching sectors, and it would enhance our integration in a global and European economy. Indeed, that is the decision that I hope to encourage him to consider today. It is widely recognised that offering only optional languages up to 16 has taken its toll on the success of our education system as a whole. The director of the National Centre for Languages, Isabella Moore, states: "““With 70 per cent of businesses now involved in some form of international activity, the idea that languages are just for ‘academic’ pupils is short-sighted and damaging to the economy””." You only have to go into the City of London to see that most of the employees now are foreign. The reason is that they come to this country able to speak different foreign languages competently—not just one, but maybe two and often three—and to do business in them. Isabella Moore’s statement is striking. I was reminded of it as I read the Financial Services Skills Council’s report, Graduate Skills and Recruitment in the City, of September this year. The paragraph on skills and abilities makes it clear that foreign graduates have a huge advantage over English graduates in the City. Those graduates are a direct product of globalised labour markets which have undergone periods of change in recent years—namely, countries in eastern and central Europe with developed education systems. The report noted that, as I just said, many of the graduates who apply to international firms speak several European languages, including their first language and English, and that the potential further expansion of the EU will increase the flow of highly skilled migrants from East to West. Let me be clear. I am not suggesting that we do not welcome the great benefits that people from other countries bring to our economy. Those economic migrants make an invaluable contribution to our economy. But I believe that we should be giving our children the skills that will lead to their having the same opportunities to compete in that market. That is the least that we can provide. I heard the noble Lord, Lord Dearing, talking on Radio 4 at the weekend about the need to make learning a foreign language interesting, attractive and important. With great respect, I worry that we fear requiring children to undertake challenges in their school life unless those challenges are somehow sugar-coated. One only has to consider for a moment the growth in competition for jobs from highly skilled, low-cost economies such as China and India, where children are learning foreign languages and are hungry to compete with our children in the UK, to appreciate just how important languages are. In short, our children cannot be aspirant if they do not speak at least one modern foreign language. That is how important this is. Therefore, I am pleased that the noble Lord, Lord Dearing, is to carry out a language review and that the Secretary of State has noted the amendments that we tabled in Committee and has recognised that this is an urgent matter. I have reread the Minister’s response in Committee, where he made it clear that, "““Part of our problem in focusing high-quality language teaching in our schools is deciding which language should be taught””.—[Official Report, 20/7/06; col. 1513.]" That is why I have revised my amendments so that the choice of languages would remain a matter for the discretion of the Secretary of State. I believe that that is right, as it allows time for consultation on the most appropriate languages to learn and flexibility to adapt languages learnt in a changing world. I congratulate the Minister on the initiatives that he has introduced. A positive drive towards training more PGCE students in languages and the target by 2010 for all seven to 11 year-olds to have the opportunity to learn a language are very welcome. I was intrigued to hear about the Spanish language dance mat that the noble Baroness, Lady Howe, has been sent. I hope that before this Bill goes to another place other noble Lords will have an opportunity to test it out. I say to the noble Baronesses, Lady Walmsley and Lady Sharp, that while the principle of their amendment is laudable, I fear that the cost implications in the immediate future are too great. However, it is a worthy aim, which I hope the Minister can factor into consideration of the future of primary education. The comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, about the workforce were absolutely right. I well recall that my introduction to learning French was entirely audiovisual. It was not necessary for the teacher to have a qualification in that foreign language under his or her belt. I learnt just from listening to a tape and watching a screen. It was fantastic. I can still repeat much of what I learnt many years ago. To say that the measure is unworkable because there are not enough teachers exacerbates the downward spiral. I shall repeat that comment when we discuss science education next Tuesday. We cannot afford to lose any more time. This matter is critical. I have said much about the need to teach foreign languages to meet young people’s aspirations in the global economy. This is not just about securing jobs in the City; there is huge competition for all jobs. The flexibility that so many foreign students have to take on new subjects because they can converse in a different language is amazing. We are denying our children huge opportunities and chances in life because of the frankly dreadful policy that is in place. These amendments are tabled in spirit with amendments on the three sciences and the IGCSE that we shall discuss next week. They are all presented with a joint purpose—to raise standards in our schools and to give our children the global opportunities that they deserve. I hope that the Minister will give a positive response to our amendments and a stronger policy commitment to modern languages than we have seen from his department so far.